Air travel is voluntary, no matter what your employer expects. We don't guarantee anyone to get through life without ever revealing things about themselves. If I want to fly I need a passport, for which I am required to give in a photo, show birth certificates and have my fingers scanned. Is this invading my privacy? Hell yeah, but airlines and foreign states owe me nothing, so I better quit complaining. Similarly a large proportion of people need to drive a vehicle for their job. Are they "forced" to get a driving license?
I don't see how body scanners violate human rights, and consider it due to the recent overzealous privacy movement, which loves to bash ID cards, but oversees the more serious problems such as private databases which lack transparency, and ignores the vast amount of information already collected and stored for various purposes. Body searches are accepted even though they can be much more indecent than a discreet scan (ever had to strip down behind a door for security guards?). Body scanners are indiscriminate and vastly more effective.
It also appalls me how people so quickly pull the "human rights" card for situations when it is entirely inappropriate and thereby damage the indisputable authority of real human rights.
This attitude is precisely the problem and Americans fail to grasp it. You can't blame them, considering that they've been lied to about terrorists "hating their freedoms". The truth of the matter is that militant Islam was much, much less a problem before 9/11. The Bush administration exploited the tragedy to polarize opinion so that they could push their middle-eastern agenda under the veil of a "war on terror". Considering that "Islamic terrorism" has not so much been about religion, but ha always been about politics, specifically US middle-eastern policy, it's not surprising that this has done a great deal to mobilize them. The result is that thousands of people in the Muslim world, even wealthy European citizens have come to identify with terrorists. Europe has suffered from this new form of domestic terrorism which came as a result of American excitement to "start killing terrorists", whereby terrorist essentially means anyone who doesn't like US foreign policy or somebody who can be exploited by calling them terrorists as a diplomatic "favor".
Stability is mainly a problem for small, toy-sized craft. Another reason why multiple rotors are used is so that they can cancel out each others torque, so you don't need a tail-rotor. Personal aircraft similar to what you described have been made like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VZ-1_Pawnee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoloTrek_XFV
They obviously don't run on batteries. I don't know what the largest battery-powered craft ever made is, but even for model planes they were totally impractical just a few years ago.
I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90% of smartphones out there anytime soon.
Antitrust law is a huge area, and covers a wide range of practices and strategies. Saying that they are completely clean because they have no monopoly (which is a fuzzy and relative term anyway) is wrong. If they are found to be anti-competitive they deserve to burn.
As an American living in China, it pains me to see this sort of hysterical nonsense on Slashdot all the time. China is the new Evil Empire, apparently. Scream "fascist" all you want, but you and most other westerners do not understand Chinese civilization or the role that government has traditionally played in it. Then again, maybe the U.S. should "pre-empt" their errors, and save China from the Chinese.:-P
The objection that we can not judge a state because we "do not understand Chinese civilisation" is cliché and polemic toward historians and political scientists.
The PRC shows many signs totalitarianism and nationalism. It is a severely oppressive ethnically authoritarian superstate. You may want to argue how this is good and the best thing for Chinese people, but I think most people consider all of these characteristics of "evil-Empire".
It is difficult to generalize in a huge country with many different cultures. But perceptions of sexual decency are relatively universal, so I'd say we don't need a specifically Chinese introduction.
Using a character from a series infringes on copyright more than anything. By that however I mean more than just the name. The history, appearance and setting is more decisive than common christian names. Using a trademarked name within a work doesn't necessarily infringe on the trademark.
Thus I could write a crime novel in which a character appears with the name Harry Potter, as it is a common name. If I make him the main character and start promoting it with that name, I would be progressively infringing on the trademark. Of course JK Rowling and company will see it a little more agressively but that's for the courts to decide.
In this case they don't appear to have promoted the film with the trademarked Zelda and Link names, but they set the movie in the Hyrule Universe, copied the story from the game and used the characters. A clear copyright case.
Trademark has absolutely nothing to do with this case, particularly considering that they avoided using any trademarks in the title. The copyright holder, or more specifically the author, needs to grant permission for derivatives. Often they will do this liberally for fans, but if it's a huge corporation and an important franchise, they will be concerned about having a negative effect.
Not true. While you might find a few examples of an alternative being cheaper, one of the most consistent feature of the numerous iPod iterations is that they consistently undercut devices with a comparable feature set when they're released. Every year they improve yet they keep getting cheaper. That's why Microsoft failed so spectacularly with the first Zune. They released what they thought was a competitive player, but within months Apple had slashed their prices and was gearing up to release their new nano, the iPod touch and the new iPod classic, all of which whooped the Zune's ass.
I still don't see the problem, as it's still perfectly simple to install software by other means. If you mobile contract doesn't give you unrestricted access to the internet, that's a problem with your carrier, not with the ecosystem.
Have you been to a RealD movie? Do you wear corrective glasses? In my experience wearing the glasses is the most uncomfortable part of it. Having to put the polarized glasses over my own presses against my nose and gives me a headache, like with a new pair of glasses.
It requires international transactions within the member countries to cost the same as national transfers. I don't know the details in every single country, but many don't charge fees for national transfers and hence, you can transfer money to any account in Europe for free.
In any case, using a credit card is probably the worst option. Aren't those fees too unreasonably high? Something like 4% on my card. For international banks there are better options than PayPal btw.
... who saw nothing wrong with purposely baiting authorities. We only have her side so of course she wants to come off as clean and pristine, yet the items and such on her point to either someone incredibly stupid or someone intentionally trying to cause a scene.
What the hell was this "bait"? She explains in detail how the Soldiers harassed and humiliated her, and not one thing mentioned counts as credible "bait" or suspicion.
There's no kidding anyone here. I know not to expect much integrity from soldiers. The incident is utterly unspectacular. But trying to twist the story to make it seem like she was to blame and that the authorities acted commendably is just rediculous.
Netbooks are laptops with a lot of the superfluous cruft removed. DVD draves and massive hard drives simply go unused most of the time. While the cheapest machines are usually netbooks, most netbooks sell for quite a bit more, The real bargain-bin devices are mostly 15.4 '' computers with old hardware and two hours of battery life.
I purchased mine shortly after the mini9 series was launched, and the choice was either an 8GB version with Ubuntu, or a 16GB version with XP. I bought the 16 GB one and installed Ubuntu.
Before Activision there were only Atari games for Atari consoles. After they settled the legal dispute it was accepted that third party games did not violate trade secrets or copyright.
The explosion of third party publishers caused Atari's grip to slip. When Nintendo came along they were aware this could happen so they included DRM.
Okay, this is digging far too deep. The point is that you should view using licensed code for your project as a privilege. Not all circumstances can be considered in the license, so you are welcome to negotiate a deal with the copyright holders, as you would with any non-free code.
Not really, but I do know that the Vinyl versions of the most prominent offenders like Metallica and Red Hot Chilli Peppers suffered from the same range compression that the CD release did.
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory
But everything had to be tailored for one-button mice so it was still a restriction.
Air travel is voluntary, no matter what your employer expects. We don't guarantee anyone to get through life without ever revealing things about themselves. If I want to fly I need a passport, for which I am required to give in a photo, show birth certificates and have my fingers scanned. Is this invading my privacy? Hell yeah, but airlines and foreign states owe me nothing, so I better quit complaining.
Similarly a large proportion of people need to drive a vehicle for their job. Are they "forced" to get a driving license?
I don't see how body scanners violate human rights, and consider it due to the recent overzealous privacy movement, which loves to bash ID cards, but oversees the more serious problems such as private databases which lack transparency, and ignores the vast amount of information already collected and stored for various purposes.
Body searches are accepted even though they can be much more indecent than a discreet scan (ever had to strip down behind a door for security guards?). Body scanners are indiscriminate and vastly more effective.
It also appalls me how people so quickly pull the "human rights" card for situations when it is entirely inappropriate and thereby damage the indisputable authority of real human rights.
Luggage is only checked on departure, not on arrival. I've never heard of security checks after landing.
This attitude is precisely the problem and Americans fail to grasp it. You can't blame them, considering that they've been lied to about terrorists "hating their freedoms". The truth of the matter is that militant Islam was much, much less a problem before 9/11. The Bush administration exploited the tragedy to polarize opinion so that they could push their middle-eastern agenda under the veil of a "war on terror".
Considering that "Islamic terrorism" has not so much been about religion, but ha always been about politics, specifically US middle-eastern policy, it's not surprising that this has done a great deal to mobilize them. The result is that thousands of people in the Muslim world, even wealthy European citizens have come to identify with terrorists. Europe has suffered from this new form of domestic terrorism which came as a result of American excitement to "start killing terrorists", whereby terrorist essentially means anyone who doesn't like US foreign policy or somebody who can be exploited by calling them terrorists as a diplomatic "favor".
Stability is mainly a problem for small, toy-sized craft. Another reason why multiple rotors are used is so that they can cancel out each others torque, so you don't need a tail-rotor. Personal aircraft similar to what you described have been made like these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VZ-1_Pawnee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoloTrek_XFV
They obviously don't run on batteries. I don't know what the largest battery-powered craft ever made is, but even for model planes they were totally impractical just a few years ago.
I am by no means a big fan of Apple or Apple products in general, but for those screaming "anti-trust" Apple is entirely within their right to do this (although whether its the "right" thing to do is questionable) considering A) Apple has nothing near a monopoly over the smartphone market B) A monopoly over one's own product is hardly a monopoly and C) Even if Apple were able to completely supplant Google Latitude among iPhone users, they're not going to be selling their software on the other 90% of smartphones out there anytime soon.
Antitrust law is a huge area, and covers a wide range of practices and strategies. Saying that they are completely clean because they have no monopoly (which is a fuzzy and relative term anyway) is wrong. If they are found to be anti-competitive they deserve to burn.
As an American living in China, it pains me to see this sort of hysterical nonsense on Slashdot all the time. China is the new Evil Empire, apparently. Scream "fascist" all you want, but you and most other westerners do not understand Chinese civilization or the role that government has traditionally played in it. Then again, maybe the U.S. should "pre-empt" their errors, and save China from the Chinese. :-P
The objection that we can not judge a state because we "do not understand Chinese civilisation" is cliché and polemic toward historians and political scientists.
The PRC shows many signs totalitarianism and nationalism. It is a severely oppressive ethnically authoritarian superstate.
You may want to argue how this is good and the best thing for Chinese people, but I think most people consider all of these characteristics of "evil-Empire".
It is difficult to generalize in a huge country with many different cultures. But perceptions of sexual decency are relatively universal, so I'd say we don't need a specifically Chinese introduction.
Using a character from a series infringes on copyright more than anything. By that however I mean more than just the name. The history, appearance and setting is more decisive than common christian names.
Using a trademarked name within a work doesn't necessarily infringe on the trademark.
Thus I could write a crime novel in which a character appears with the name Harry Potter, as it is a common name. If I make him the main character and start promoting it with that name, I would be progressively infringing on the trademark.
Of course JK Rowling and company will see it a little more agressively but that's for the courts to decide.
In this case they don't appear to have promoted the film with the trademarked Zelda and Link names, but they set the movie in the Hyrule Universe, copied the story from the game and used the characters. A clear copyright case.
Trademark has absolutely nothing to do with this case, particularly considering that they avoided using any trademarks in the title.
The copyright holder, or more specifically the author, needs to grant permission for derivatives. Often they will do this liberally for fans, but if it's a huge corporation and an important franchise, they will be concerned about having a negative effect.
Not true. While you might find a few examples of an alternative being cheaper, one of the most consistent feature of the numerous iPod iterations is that they consistently undercut devices with a comparable feature set when they're released. Every year they improve yet they keep getting cheaper. That's why Microsoft failed so spectacularly with the first Zune. They released what they thought was a competitive player, but within months Apple had slashed their prices and was gearing up to release their new nano, the iPod touch and the new iPod classic, all of which whooped the Zune's ass.
Au contraire! We had some near-perfect mockups of the iPhone months before it was announced:
http://gizmodo.com/201329/rumor-touchscreen-ipod-before-christmas
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/touchscreen-ipod-due-this-november-says-our-secret-source-192158.php
Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWR#List_of_BWRs
I still don't see the problem, as it's still perfectly simple to install software by other means. If you mobile contract doesn't give you unrestricted access to the internet, that's a problem with your carrier, not with the ecosystem.
Why not just open a Euro account like almost every bank in the UK offers?
Have you been to a RealD movie? Do you wear corrective glasses?
In my experience wearing the glasses is the most uncomfortable part of it. Having to put the polarized glasses over my own presses against my nose and gives me a headache, like with a new pair of glasses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area
It requires international transactions within the member countries to cost the same as national transfers. I don't know the details in every single country, but many don't charge fees for national transfers and hence, you can transfer money to any account in Europe for free.
In any case, using a credit card is probably the worst option. Aren't those fees too unreasonably high? Something like 4% on my card.
For international banks there are better options than PayPal btw.
... who saw nothing wrong with purposely baiting authorities. We only have her side so of course she wants to come off as clean and pristine, yet the items and such on her point to either someone incredibly stupid or someone intentionally trying to cause a scene.
What the hell was this "bait"? She explains in detail how the Soldiers harassed and humiliated her, and not one thing mentioned counts as credible "bait" or suspicion.
There's no kidding anyone here. I know not to expect much integrity from soldiers. The incident is utterly unspectacular. But trying to twist the story to make it seem like she was to blame and that the authorities acted commendably is just rediculous.
Netbooks are laptops with a lot of the superfluous cruft removed. DVD draves and massive hard drives simply go unused most of the time.
While the cheapest machines are usually netbooks, most netbooks sell for quite a bit more, The real bargain-bin devices are mostly 15.4 '' computers with old hardware and two hours of battery life.
I purchased mine shortly after the mini9 series was launched, and the choice was either an 8GB version with Ubuntu, or a 16GB version with XP. I bought the 16 GB one and installed Ubuntu.
Before Activision there were only Atari games for Atari consoles. After they settled the legal dispute it was accepted that third party games did not violate trade secrets or copyright.
The explosion of third party publishers caused Atari's grip to slip. When Nintendo came along they were aware this could happen so they included DRM.
That ends up basically the same except:
- you need 2 clicks instead of one
- you're missing out on useful shortcuts
- you can't move tabs around
- you don't have favicons
Okay, this is digging far too deep. The point is that you should view using licensed code for your project as a privilege.
Not all circumstances can be considered in the license, so you are welcome to negotiate a deal with the copyright holders, as you would with any non-free code.
BTW, GPL3 is compatible with Apache.
Not really, but I do know that the Vinyl versions of the most prominent offenders like Metallica and Red Hot Chilli Peppers suffered from the same range compression that the CD release did.
Do developers of proprietary apps offer distribution licenses to anyone? I don't think so.